A rather strong point against the Book of Mormon, from Joseph Smith ...

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Post by _bcspace »

I don't see anything in the quotes you provided to indicate this. I think your premise is therefore, faulty.

Are you and will sharing the same crackpipe? Dats sum goood sh!t you got there.


Feel free to quote and highlight what indicates that Joseph Smith said the first people in America were the Jaredites.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Post by _Dr. Shades »

Chap wrote:A living apologist Trump's a dead prophet any day.


It's worse than that: A living apologists Trump's a resurrected angel any day.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley
_krose
_Emeritus
Posts: 2555
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:18 pm

Post by _krose »

Another interesting point (to me, at least) about the Jaredite story, both in the Book of Mormon and this letter, is its reliance on the fanciful biblical account of the Tower of Babel and the resulting confounding of languages being literally true.
"The DNA of fictional populations appears to be the most susceptible to extinction." - Simon Southerton
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Post by _bcspace »

Another interesting point (to me, at least) about the Jaredite story, both in the Book of Mormon and this letter, is its reliance on the fanciful biblical account of the Tower of Babel and the resulting confounding of languages being literally true.


This actually might be some good evidence for a local flood. If Genesis 10:5 takes place before the tower of Babel, then the language confounded at the tower was the local language which makes more sense in the case of a local flood.

In that case, then we see other possible Hebrews usages for "all the earth" and "whole earth" ('erets ) comming into play. These could just as easily be the "whole district" or the "whole nation" etc.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_Who Knows
_Emeritus
Posts: 2455
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:09 pm

Post by _Who Knows »

bcspace wrote:
I don't see anything in the quotes you provided to indicate this. I think your premise is therefore, faulty.

Are you and will sharing the same crackpipe? Dats sum goood sh!t you got there.


Feel free to quote and highlight what indicates that Joseph Smith said the first people in America were the Jaredites.


Feel free to read my post before responding next time. Or is that the crack talking?

Here it is again:

In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Post by _bcspace »

Feel free to read my post before responding next time. Or is that the crack talking?

Here it is again:


Read the OP and then read Beastie's even more clarifying comment......

It's amazing, isn't it? Here you have clear evidence, in the Wentworth Letter, that Joseph Smith was taught by one of its former inhabitants that the Lehites were the first settlers, the aboriginal natives, of the New World which directly contradicts LGT.


Is chap implying that because Joseph Smith taught that these were the first settlers (relative to what?) that Joseph Smith is also teaching that there were no others ever in the land? I think he is.....

So my question merely was which of the quotes posted in the OP imply such a thing? So far...no answer.....
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Post by _Chap »

bcspace wrote:
I don't see anything in the quotes you provided to indicate this. I think your premise is therefore, faulty.

Are you and will sharing the same crackpipe? Dats sum goood sh!t you got there.


Feel free to quote and highlight what indicates that Joseph Smith said the first people in America were the Jaredites.


Let's see. An angel appears to Smith, and Smith gives the following account of what happened then:

I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity, and the blessings of God being finally withdrawn from them as a people, was made known unto me; ...


So as a result of his conversation he knows who the aboriginal inhabitants were, their origin, where they came from, and what happened to them later.

To normal speakers of the English language, especially those acquainted with the Latin etymology of the word, 'aboriginal' means the people who have been there 'from the start', ab origine, meaning in practice since long before the arrival of settlers of European stock like those from whom Smith was descended. Since 'this country' is America for Joseph Smith, that means the angel told him who 'the first people in America' were.

Then Smith says:

I was also told where were deposited some plates on which were engraven an abridgment of the records of the ancient Prophets that had existed on this continent.


So the angel, who has just told him all about the first settlers in America, and all that happened up to the time when 'the blessings of God were withdrawn from them' tells him where to find some gold plates with ancient records from the history of 'this continent'.

(OK so far? Or is it at this point that you will propose to start reading words in some special restricted sense to protect yourself from the conclusions that any normal reader would draw?)

Now what is in those records?

In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement


so this stuff is going to cover the same ground as the angel's history lesson, right from the origins of the aborigines. And at no point does Smith ever suggest that the angel's account and that of the Book of Mormon (which the angel told him how to find) are in any way at odds with one another. Had they been, that would have been astounding, since the 'angel' is surely Moroni, who can be assumed to know exactly what was in the plates that he had himself hidden.

Smith says the Book of Mormon story, like the angel's account, tells us about the people who got to America first. These people were:

a colony that came from the Tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages


Since he is talking about the Book of Mormon, we can identify these people as the Jaredites (an identification that Smith shortly afterwards confirms) According to Smith, the account on the plates continues

to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian Era.


But were the Jaredites the only inhabitants before the coming of Europeans? No:

We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites, and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem, about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites, of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country.


So Smith knows of only two races that have inhabited the country before his time. Those responsible for the 'first settlement' were the Jaredites, who were eventually destroyed. The rest were clearly (following the Book of Mormon) the descendants of Nephi's party, whose 'principal nation' (from the Book of Mormon , the Nephites) were wiped out by (from the Book of Mormon) the other nation, the Lamanites, at which point, as the Book of Mormon tells us, consistent with the angel's account, "the blessings of God [were] finally withdrawn from them as a people". The Lamanite 'remnant' are the Indians.

I just don't see:

(a) Where the doubt comes from about the Jaredites being the first people in America. Heck, it was the Jaredites who were, according to Smith, responsible for the 'first settlement'. He had two sources for that fact, one the Book of Mormon and the other the account by the angel, which included, he says information on the origins of the aborigines. There is no sign that Smith felt his sources were inconsistent - which would have been very remarkable, given the almost certain identification of the angel with Moroni, the last premodern person to possess and read the Book of Mormon.

(b) Why bcspace would find uncongenial the very obvious conclusion that Smith believed and stated that the Jaredites were the first people in America.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

It is truly gratifying to see that my post has provoked yet another LDS apologist into giving a fine examples of the occipito-rectal intromission technique.


LOLOLOLOLOL
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_cksalmon
_Emeritus
Posts: 1267
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:20 pm

Post by _cksalmon »

bcspace wrote:Is chap implying that because Joseph Smith taught that these were the first settlers (relative to what?) that Joseph Smith is also teaching that there were no others ever in the land? I think he is.....


I don't think Chap's implying it. I think he's just stating it. The only possible reason I can think of for arguing that Joseph Smith didn't mean for his "first settlers" to be construed as the, well, "first settlers," is that it is obvious that Joseph Smith was wrong at this point. Thus, one must introduce completely acontextual inferences (e.g., perhaps Joseph Smith meant the "first settlers" from, say, the Middle East, rather than the actual-factual, real-live "first settlers" that predated his own unqualified "first settlers").

What an ad hoc supposition.

Chris
_Who Knows
_Emeritus
Posts: 2455
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:09 pm

Post by _Who Knows »

cksalmon wrote:
bcspace wrote:Is chap implying that because Joseph Smith taught that these were the first settlers (relative to what?) that Joseph Smith is also teaching that there were no others ever in the land? I think he is.....


I don't think Chap's implying it. I think he's just stating it. The only possible reason I can think of for arguing that Joseph Smith didn't mean for his "first settlers" to be construed as the, well, "first settlers," is that it is obvious that Joseph Smith was wrong at this point. Thus, one must introduce completely acontextual inferences (e.g., perhaps Joseph Smith meant the "first settlers" from, say, the Middle East, rather than the actual-factual, real-live "first settlers" that predated his own unqualified "first settlers").

What an ad hoc supposition.

Chris


You can't even do that. Joseph Smith didn't call the jaredites the 'first settlers'. He said ancient america was first settled by the jaredites. I have no earthly idea how bcspace can say what he's saying with a straight face.
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
Post Reply